Alcohol costs the state €1.7 Billion a year!Call for more taxes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0823/469840-alcohol-taxes/
A Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist has said that taxes on the off-licence sector should be increased.
Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Dr Bobby Smyth, a board member of Alcohol Action Ireland, said .......Despite the fact that drink costs €3.7bn in alcohol-related harm, we only take €2bn in tax from drinkers, so it does seem odd that as a society we seem unwilling to ask drinkers to pay for the costs of the consequences of their own behaviour."

So do you believe that alcohol should be taxed more to pay for the damage it does?
I do, I fail to see why drinking and smoking which cost more to the state in damage done than they bring in with tax should be subsidized by non drinkers/smokers.

Days 298

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

So do you believe that alcohol should be taxed more?

No.

StephenHendry

:eek: alcohol here is taxed the most in the EU , why more tax it

zenno

Why the hell should i pay more for alcohol just to pay for idiots that cannot control their alcohol intake and get sick because of their stupidity.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Seachmall

zenno wrote: »

Why the hell should i pay more for alcohol just to pay for idiots that cannot control their alcohol intake and get sick because of their stupidity.

This is beyond ridiculous.

You realise you pay for it regardless, right?

ArmaniJeanss

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0823/469840-alcohol-taxes/
A Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist has said that taxes on the off-licence sector should be increased.
Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Dr Bobby Smyth, a board member of Alcohol Action Ireland, said .......Despite the fact that drink costs €3.7bn in alcohol-related harm, we only take €2bn in tax from drinkers, so it does seem odd that as a society we seem unwilling to ask drinkers to pay for the costs of the consequences of their own behaviour."

So do you believe that alcohol should be taxed more to pay for the damage it does?
I do, I fail to see why drinking and smoking which cost more to the state in damage done than they bring in with tax should be subsidized by non drinkers/smokers.

I doubt the bolded bit is actually a 'fact', it's likely a figure they've pulled from their arses and massaged to make as big as possible.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

zenno wrote: »

Why the hell should i pay more for alcohol just to pay for idiots that cannot control their alcohol intake and get sick because of their stupidity.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Well the argument goes like this, alcohol is costing the state €1,700,000,000 per year, who should pay? Those who purchase it, or everybody regardless of whether they drink or not.

wexie

Maybe if you changed the thread title to 'alcohol abuse' you'd get somewhat closer to having a point.

And why only the off licenses? Alcohol in pubs restaurants and hotels is okay is it?

Alcohol consumption in and of itself costs the state absolutely nothing....nada zip zilch niente nyet....

So do you believe that alcohol should be taxed more to pay for the damage it does?

Nope, not one bit

Sir Humphrey Appleby

wexie wrote: »

Maybe if you changed the thread title to 'alcohol abuse' you'd get somewhat closer to having a point.

And why only the off licenses? Alcohol in pubs restaurants and hotels is okay is it?

Alcohol consumption in and of itself costs the state absolutely nothing....nada zip zilch niente nyet....



Nope, not one bit

It does, alcohol related illness, deaths, absence from work, accidents etc cost the state €1.7 billion.
That €1.7 could be spent a lot more productively, so why shouldn't those who drink have to pay for the damage it causes?

zenno

Seachmall wrote: »

You realise you pay for it regardless, right?

Unfortunately.

Days 298

Do the stats include the money the state takes in rates from pubs, nightclubs, restaurants, off licences, various taxes paid by employees, employers and all other spin off trade and taxes such as taxis. Or have the figures been made to make the cost of alcohol related harm (very vague?) as high as possible and the tax take as low as possible. Drink is cheaper elsewhere in Europe.

F*ck off nannies!

folan

we share the burden becasue thats what society does. you dont get to pick and choose who you help and who you dont. Fit people help pay for the damage obese people do to themselves, non drivers help pay for roads, people without children help pay for primary schools.

yoyo

I love this notion that all alcohol problems will disappear if it's made more expensive and also only the off licenses are to blame (sure no one ever gets drunk in pubs or clubs thanks to the "responsible" publicans).. If there is anything that should be higher taxed, I would say gambling. Some of those ads for smartphone apps/websites for gambling are shocking, and I think gambling is as serious an addiction and I would consider worse than alcohol. They don't have any "game responsibly" spiel you hear on all TV alcohol ads and also "glamourize" the idea of gambling (which is what the cigarette and alcohol companies are not allowed to do?).
Of course I don't agree with any of this nanny state crap, as adults people need to take responsibility be it drinking, gambling smoking or whatever. Alcohol is already expensive enough over here and doesn't need to be made more expensive. How do you deal with the idiots who hurt themselves/are hospitalized due to booze? Bill them for it maybe? That would seem like the common sense approach. It's not as if the ones who cannot afford drink won't go to whatever means to get it (crime, shoplifting etc.) if they are addicted, likewise with other addictions.

Nick

SEPT 23 1989

All this drink talk is making me thirsty

smellmepower

VFI must be delighted with this report,and their government cronies behind it.

wexie

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

It does, alcohol related illness, deaths, absence from work, accidents etc cost the state €1.7 billion.
That €1.7 could be spent a lot more productively, so why shouldn't those who drink have to pay for the damage it causes?

All of which are due to alcohol abuse. A responsible adult, with responsible alcohol consumption will rarely case or suffer any of these.

Tell me why I should pay more for beer, whiskey wine etc because there are morons out there that go out and get drunk and then start picking fights, hop in the car etc. etc. etc. ?

By that logic then we should also start increasing taxes on fast food, Toyota Glanza's and shellsuits.....

awec

Should we tax obese people more on the food they buy?

Making things more expensive will solve nothing. It will just push people to buy the cheapest stuff they can find.

zenno

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Well the argument goes like this, alcohol is costing the state €1,700,000,000 per year, who should pay? Those who purchase it, or everybody regardless of whether they drink or not.

Right, fair enough, you have a valid point. I agree, people that don't drink alcohol should most definitely not have to pay for this.

Well i suppose i may as well just bite my tongue and pay the extra tax so, if it comes in, seeing that i am a moderate drinker. But what next ? something else will come in again after this to hike the prices.

@ awec

Should we tax obese people more on the food they buy?

Making things more expensive will solve nothing. It will just push people to buy the cheapest stuff they can find.

Jesus no, not dutch gold. i'd give the beer up once and for all if i could only afford that crud.

seamus

When an organisation called "Alcohol Action Ireland" brings out a figure of €3.7bn for "Alcohol-related harm", I'm immediately skeptical.

Until they post a breakdown of this information, I'm going to assume that figure includes spurious calculations like the productivity lost from hangovers.

Tiddlypeeps

This smacks of made up sh*t from lobby groups trying to get the government to help push people back into the pubs.

c_man

Tax will fix everything.

jester77

Maybe if they broke down this 3.7 figure that they somehow came up with, then it would be easier to tackle the problem. Why not work on what is causing this number to be so high instead of coming up with stupid suggestions like a one size fits magical tax that will miraculously fix the problem.

There are simpler ways of tacking costs, e.g.:
If there are a lot of people missing Monday morning from work because they are hungover, then don't pay them.
If there are people falling into casualty with injuries because they were drunk then make them pay the full amount, not the health insurance.
If drunken people are causing vandalism, make them pay for it.
And so on.

How does someone like this even get a Dr title

super_furry

I'd be very, very interested in seeing the numbers behind that 3.7billion nonsense.

munchkin_utd

i would tax spirits way more than beer/ cider as its arguably more damaging.
also wine should be taxed more as it is much higher in alcohol content.

Oh hang on, the excise duty on spirits is already multiples of what it is on beer.
And wine got hit in the last budget.

so, maybe leave it as it is so!!

ArmaniJeanss

Interestingly we the taxpayer actually fund Alcohol Action Ireland, and thus we paid for them to come up with this set of nonsense figures.

conorhal

StephenHendry wrote: »

alcohol here is taxed the most in the EU , why more tax it

Because we're never done applying the same failed solutions to the same increecing problems.


You know what, it has become my firm belief that if the words 'tax' and 'ban' were themselves banned from every discussion about social issues at the cabinet table, we would arrive at real world concrete solutions to most of society's ills far more quickly, because the same 'ol bankrupt thinking would immediately off the table and some lateral thinking would get a break for once.

COYVB

alcohol costs the state nothing. poor education and lack of respect for it cost the state money. how about instead of taxing it more the state refuses to deal with alcohol related hospital admissions on the public's dollar? need your stomach pumped? grand, you're paying for it. got paralytic drunk and fell and broke your arm? credit card please

SEPT 23 1989

How much does Dr Bobby cost the taxpayer per year?

niallu

Where is your statistic that smokers cost the state money?

Are all the health insurance premiums factored into this calculation also?

I'm aware that that the likes of VHI (semi state body) are breaking even at best, but alot of that is down to mis-management of finances and the fact they are slow to change their ways.

RGDATA!

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

So do you believe that alcohol should be taxed more to pay for the damage it does?
I do, I fail to see why drinking and smoking which cost more to the state in damage done than they bring in with tax should be subsidized by non drinkers/smokers.

Do you have the data for smoking? I have read some stuff that shows, in other countries, that smoking is actually close enough to neutral to the state financially, mainly because smokers die younger/don't need as many years support from state.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

When an organisation called "Alcohol Action Ireland" brings out a figure of €3.7bn for "Alcohol-related harm", I'm immediately skeptical.

Until they post a breakdown of this information, I'm going to assume that figure includes spurious calculations like the productivity lost from hangovers.

the word "Related" is the one that should ring alarm bells alright. Any event can be related to a whole string of things. Doesn't make it a determining factor, nor even more importantly the cause for such event.

I could have a few drinks, stumble on some steps and break my ankle. The problem is I stumbled, not the drinks.

kalych

While it is true that we are paying for this already and it would kinda make sense to push the burden off the general taxpayer to the more "narrow" group of consumers, not to burden non-consumers with payments for something they do not use.

I would like to point out that decreased socialising could lead to other societal issues and we can potentially end up with a high proportion of the population needing psychologist services increasing the expenditure on healthcare to a similar tune. Sometimes these things even themselves out. More drinkers - less prescription pill poppers, we all have to deal with our issues somehow, who's to say drinking is the worst way to deal with them?!

Dravokivich

kalych wrote: »

While it is true that we are paying for this already and it would kinda make sense to push the burden off the general taxpayer to the more "narrow" group of consumers, not to burden those that don't consume alcohol with repayments for something they do not use.

It doesn't though. More money spent on tax, means less money spent on other stuff.

Days 298

conorhal wrote: »

Because we're never done applying the same failed solutions to the same increasing problems.


You know what, it has become my firm belief that if the words 'tax' and 'ban' were themselves banned from every discussion about social issues at the cabinet table, we would arrive at real world concrete solutions to most of society's ills far more quickly, because the same 'ol bankrupt thinking would immediately off the table and some lateral thinking would get a break for once.

Gotcha Levy it is so. Which is catchier Lid Levy or the Alcoholic Beverage Levy?

Lid Levy:http://www.thejournal.ie/lid-levy-alcohol-sponsorship-sports-1013466-Jul2013/

Ray Palmer

I wonder when they will point out how much they spend on drug enforcement and how it doesn't actually stop the drugs coming in or being produced here.

stevenmu

Lots of studies have shown that low to moderate alcohol consumption can have health benefits.

I think us responsible drinkers should get a tax refund for all the money that we save the health service.

L.Jenkins

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

.......Despite the fact that drink costs €3.7bn in alcohol-related harm, we only take €2bn in tax from drinkers.....

StephenHendry wrote: »

:eek: alcohol here is taxed the most in the EU , why more tax it

Maybe that's a good reason why!

jimgoose

So from the usual idiots the usual plan, i.e. to make my bi-weekly gallon a' porter down t'Woolpack even more expensive, is it? Right. I have a better idea:

* Ban ALL supermarket alcohol sales.
* Align off-license pricing to that of pubs. [1]
* Introduce a garda-vetted endorsement on driver's licenses without which people are not allowed into licensed premises of any sort. [2]

Watch alcohol-related costs to society plummet to near-zero. Think the above is stupid/draconian/impractical? Then leave me and my Pint a' Plain the furk alone.


[1] Low-income types tend, on average not to be the sort we like sharing a drink with in the bar, or the sort who should be consuming drink unsupervised.

[2] See [1] above and apply it to people without driver's licenses.

zenno

stevenmu wrote: »

Lots of studies have shown that low to moderate alcohol consumption can have health benefits.

I think us responsible drinkers should get a tax refund for all the money that we save the health service.

Mods... is there any chance i can thank this post twice

kalych

Dravokivich wrote: »

It doesn't though. More money spent on tax, means less money spent on other stuff.

I am sorry, maybe it is just one of those days, but I don't get what you mean by that. My point was that it is the same amount spent anyway, it is just the issue of who pays for it. If you shift the tax burden from general taxpayer onto drinkers only, the economy does not suffer, just the drinkers do, by having to stamp out the same amount of money with a smaller taxpayer base. Maybe it is Friday and I just can't think straight and do not understand your point, feel free to correct me.

As other have said figure like this are pulled out of someone arse. There is no way the state are really losing out anything like that because of drinkers and the price of drink is high enough in this country already all this talk of minimum pricing and more tax needs to just stop.

Its impossible to get accurate figures for most of this stuff and you cant just pull out one figure like that and not break it down.

As one poster said, you can be sure they aren't taking into account all the jobs in the industry and related to the industry (taxis, fast food etc) who all contribute vast amounts of money in income taxes etc.

How do they define alcohol related harm? Similar to what another poster said if I slip on a wet floor after drinking, which would have happened regardless of drink would they use this sort of incident? Or if a car runs a red light and hits me after drinking, again would this be counted as alcohol related harm.

People are also talking about "the tax payer paying for this". Yes some people are non-drinkers but most people are drinkers and these all contribute in their taxes as well as paying the taxes on the product when they purchase it.

There are endless amounts of things that people contribute to from their taxes that is of no use to them, why single out alcohol?

Dravokivich

kalych wrote: »

I am sorry, maybe it is just one of those days, but I don't get what you mean by that. My point was that it is the same amount spent anyway, it is just the issue of who pays for it. If you shift the tax burden from general taxpayer onto drinkers only, the economy does not suffer, just the drinkers do, by having to stamp out the same amount of money with a smaller taxpayer base. Maybe it is Friday and I just can't think straight and do not understand your point, feel free to correct me.

And any dependants.

kalych

Dravokivich wrote: »

And any dependants.

Sure, but it's like with everything: water charges coming in would move the burden from the general taxpayer to particular individuals who waste large amounts of it and their dependants.

Dravokivich

kalych wrote: »

Sure, but it's like with everything: water charges coming in would move the burden from the general taxpayer to particular individuals who waste large amounts of it and their dependants.

Maybe so, but isn't there some sort of allowance prior to it? This idea is just adding the tax again and again. Where instead of grabbing 6 cans, I'll be just grabbing 4. As opposed to spending an hour running a hose over the Beemer every weekend.

kalych

Dravokivich wrote: »

Maybe so, but isn't there some sort of allowance prior to it? This idea is just adding the tax again and again. Where instead of grabbing 6 cans, I'll be just grabbing 4. As opposed to spending an hour running a hose over the Beemer every weekend.

In an ideal world you would decrease the overall tax burden in line with particular tax increases and thus redistribute the burden, needless to say this is not likely.

But as I said, I actually think such redistribution can potentially cause more bad than good. As always, it is easy to come up with these ideas when trying to imagine new taxes like you pointed out, rather than try to make the taxes more fair.

hatrickpatrick

Where does the 3.7bn figure come from? How is it measured, what does it include?

I can't help feeling it probably includes a lot of indirect bullsh!t which is only partially linked to alcohol.

Hal1

They can tax the living shoite out of alcohol, just leave the petril alone.

tashiusclay

It might be better to be scrapping sham's like Arthurs day etc and trying to promote a more responsible drinking culture in this country instead of just hoping, and expecting, yet more taxes will fix this issue, instead of trying to look at the root cause of the problem in the first place.
But of course this is Ireland after all, so just forget a logical effective approach to a problem...

Dravokivich

kalych wrote: »

In an ideal world you would decrease the overall tax burden in line with particular tax increases and thus redistribute the burden, needless to say this is not likely.

But as I said, I actually think such redistribution can potentially cause more bad than good. As always, it is easy to come up with these ideas when trying to imagine new taxes like you pointed out, rather than try to make the taxes more fair.

But it won't make the distribution of taxes any fairer. It just means more people will spend less on the product itself and more on tax. Even for the casual drinker.

It's been shown before a couple of years back, if the rates are favourable, people will travel to get drink cheaper. Boosting tax like this, will make it more favourable to go up north or hop on a boat to France. Where's that lost tax going to be reclaimed from? It's a big thing now with cigarettes. Most people I know that smoke, are smoking imported cigarettes.

tashiusclay wrote: »

It might be better to be scrapping sham's like Arthurs day etc and trying to promote a more responsible drinking culture in this country instead of just hoping, and expecting, yet more taxes will fix this issue, instead of trying to look at the root cause of the problem in the first place.
But of course this is Ireland after all, so just forget a logical effective approach to a problem...

And the Bulmers Comdey Festival as well...

seamus

Dravokivich wrote: »

the word "Related" is the one that should ring alarm bells alright. Any event can be related to a whole string of things. Doesn't make it a determining factor, nor even more importantly the cause for such event.

Afaik, it's the case with road traffic accidents that where anyone involved in the incident is known to have consumed alcohol, it's classed as alcohol-related.

So if the taxi driver crashes while he's bringing you home from the pub and you suffer bruises from the seatbelt, the crash is classed as alcohol-related.
Afaik. This example may be an exaggeration.

Wompa1

The country should begin to enforce the laws that are already on the books. We should also be prosecuting parents when kids are caught for underage drinking. (Only because our current laws are so lax for underage people)

Drink Driving has been greatly reduced since the 90's and before. So it enforcing the laws in that instance helped change attitudes.

It's pointless just fining places that sell the booze. Kids can still get fake ID's or pay somebody to buy it for them.

Ultimately, adults in Ireland set an awful example for kids and kids aspire to be alcohol abusers themselves. Down with that sort of thing.